Karnataka High Court
WP/5426/2023 of MRS.VEENA Vs THE BHARAT CO OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED on 22 September 2026
CNR: KAHC010127092023 NC: 2026:KHC:52240 WP No. 5426 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 5426 OF 2023 (GM-DRT) BETWEEN: 1. MRS.VEENA W/O S MUNIKRISHNA AGE 45
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
WRIT PETITION NO. 5426 OF 2023 (GM-DRT)
BETWEEN:
1.
MRS.VEENA
W/O S MUNIKRISHNA
AGE 45 YEARS
NO 291, OPP SHANTIVANA
GOVT SCHOOL ROAD,
KODIGEHALLI, VIRUPAKSHPURA
BANGALORE - 560092.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. N. SURESHA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1.
THE BHARAT CO OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED
NO 30, 15TH CROSS,
3RD BLOCK , JAYANAGAR,
BANGALORE - 560011
REPRESENTED BY AUTHORIZED OFFICER
…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. K V LOKESH, ADVOCATE)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTCLES 226 AND 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION
OF
INDIA,
PRAYING
TO
DIRECT
THE
RESPONDENT BANK TO REGULARIZE THE LOAN ACCOUNT AS
PER ANNX-B DATED 04.03.2023; AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
Verified
HC-KAR
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORAL ORDER
The captioned writ petition is filed by the petitioner- borrower seeking a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent-Bank to consider the representation at Annexure-B and regularize the loan account.
2. This Court, by order dated 03.07.2023, had granted some indulgence to the petitioner, subject to the petitioner depositing 30% of the outstanding loan amount in three instalments.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent- Bank, on instructions, submits that though the petitioner has deposited the stipulated 30% of the outstanding amount, he has thereafter failed to make any further payment either towards regularization of the loan account or towards closure of the account by discharging the entire outstanding liability.
Verified
HC-KAR
4. This Court is of the view that the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot be invoked to restrain a secured creditor from recovering its legitimate dues in accordance with law. Merely by seeking a writ of mandamus for consideration of a representation, the petitioner cannot seek to prevent the respondent-Bank from taking recourse to the remedies available under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002.
5. It is also relevant to note that the petitioner has enjoyed the benefit of the interim order for nearly three years and, despite the indulgence granted by this Court, has not taken any further steps either to regularize the loan account or to discharge the outstanding dues. In the circumstances, no further indulgence can be granted.
6. Consequently, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. The respondent-Bank is at liberty to proceed
Verified
HC-KAR
against the petitioner and the secured assets in accordance with law.
7. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. The respondent-Bank is at liberty to proceed further in accordance with law.
Pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of.
(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE
CA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 22
Verified